Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 840
view profile
History
Evolution. Page 34 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
Lots of Prius humor in the Will Ferrel/Mark Wahlberg cop comedy, "The Other Guys". Lots of quite twisted humor all in all.. As long as the thread is devolving afterall...
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 841
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/18/2010 4:45:28 PM
So now we are speaking about the evoloution of the agruement? Though I will return and steal Krebby's explaination a place it in another place. He will get full credit for it of course. But sometimes it is better to use someone else arguement when it is explained better.


Can someone please explain to me the evolutionary process of sea creatures Certeians I think to Bone Fish. I went to the Natural History Museum in Raliegh and I didn't see a through explaination there. I may have missed it.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 842
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/18/2010 5:41:00 PM
As long as we are getting demanding about missing pieces of the big puzzle, who was God's mommy, daddy, cousins, real estate agent and PR girl? The fossil record it yielding substantive evidence, where the mythology does not. Why in the hell was Lillith dissed...Mary Magdeline turned into a whore...and incest sanctified with Adam and Eve, and the clan of Noah survivalists. Every piece that has been showing up in ancient dirt dignifies the concept of evolution, where every piece of mythology perpetuated fights the past in every attempt. Where did I miss that in the Bible?
 hungry_joe
Joined: 6/24/2006
Msg: 843
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/18/2010 6:13:38 PM
I was asking a serious question to fill in the gaps in my brain sometimes I just don't know it all. Scary huh? lol.

Paul K, On an unrelated topic I would like to pick your brain. You have a speical knowledge because your an immgrant. I'm applying to a fellows program at the White House, and as part of my application I have to write a policy memo to the President of the United States. I think I'm going to write one on how to address our immigration and how to help people enter the country legally. Sorry for the public nature of this message but your email setting wouldn't allow me to send this request to you in private. I think it could be the chance of a life time. So your help would be greatly apprechaited.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 844
Evolution.
Posted: 12/18/2010 9:03:28 PM

Why in the hell was Lillith dissed...Mary Magdeline turned into a whore...and incest sanctified with Adam and Eve, and the clan of Noah survivalists.


Because the Bible ( as we know it ) was written by a committee, picking & choosing which parts of which ancient documents or verbal histories to include in it. Once they had made their selections, they combined them all into 1 book & had to shoehorn it all together, creating contradictory passages & leaving many blank spots ( such as : who were Cain's & Abel's wives?).
 colt8301
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 845
Evolution.
Posted: 12/19/2010 5:27:51 AM

So, technically, even though you're saying that scientists are hustlers, you're using a product, and software and algorithmic formulae architecture developed by them, for myriad purposes, but used here the purpose of match-making.



No Krebby, I'm not disrespecting all scientist, I find some things that they do like cancer research, nanotechnology and things of that matter fascinating and honorable, I just think this particualr is bulls%it. I guess I am giving my fellow human beings too much credit, I think we are smart enough to know what's best for ourselves. I know we (general public) are dumb some times, but not that f%^king dumb.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 846
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/20/2010 7:51:57 PM
Thanks Paul for admitting you are a troll. Saves us from having to state the obvious. Meanwhile...Only 16% of Americans admit to being sane.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 847
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/21/2010 1:28:21 AM
Between not watching TV and Bushenomics, true dat about time to read sad to say. One of the under-employed these days.

Another interesting piece about the limits of human evolution. Backfire causes us to charge headlong into mistakes.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 848
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/23/2010 2:04:23 AM
Nationally, electric cars are primarily powered by coal, followed by nuke poop makers. There is no such thing as green cars yet. It's all marketing and no substance. Perhaps the most insideous scam though comes in the form of turning food into fuels, the ethanol/car moonshine debacle. Corn is the worst commercially grown crop for soil sustainability and fossil fuel dependency. It takes more oil to make a gallon of ethanol than is produced. Ethanol also takes thousands of gallons of water per gallon in production, depleting aquifers in the process. And Corngress is threatening us with an increase from 10% ethanol contamination levels, to 15% mandates to sate ADM, Monsanto, and Cargill bribe/PAC monies. Just the 10% contamination levels are destroying engines and mileage.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/e15-gasoline-damage-engine

More than all that, food prices are directly related to converting over a third of our corn cropland into moonshine for cars. As we devolve, farming practices are now becoming as egregious as they did in the leadup to the last dustbowl, food riots will become more common, and over 1/6th of the planet human populace is starving. Feeding a SUV with corn could have fed 10 people.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 849
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/23/2010 7:17:51 AM
Agreed Foshfish on the hypocrisy of flying do-gooders, and otherwise sensitive and sensible people who think the world needs to see them.

Paul.. A landmark day when we agree on something.
California is just one bad year away from an agricultural disaster though. Luckily you have a great snow pack this year and ample rain. Last year there were 200 water districts in the central valley that could not get enough water. There is also the issue of loss of pollinators via CCD of bees. Russia had a bad year with it's extreme heat and drought, going from a wheat exporter to having tight domestic supplies. According to the FAO cereal prices in the next decade will rise 15-40%. While that might seem tolerable to many of us, the price of food is a life or death situation for a billion people.

Here in the land of plenty, 50,000,000 struggle to get enough nurtitious food each year, including 25% of children. Most of those millions live in "food deserts", where readily available nutritious food is not available due to distance and lack of transportation. Where people once stored, and canned enough food to get them through a year, we are now down to a few days of food security should a disaster bring the infrastructure to a halt. to add insult to injury, scumbags like Goldman Sachs have decided to manipulate markets to speculate on our food insecurity.
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/07/0083022

It's unconsciounable to throw food into gas tanks, to profit from starvation, and increasingly ethically questionable to keep eating high on the food chain. Eating beef is the SUV of the food world. Beef eaters consume an additional 300,000 gallons of water a year, and sixteen times more grain per pound than a grain and veggie diet. Then there's all that fecal matter to deal with, contaminating our drinking water and vegies.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 850
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/23/2010 11:30:07 AM
I was Count. I knew that bringing up the issue would be like tossing out red meat for hard core animal eaters.
Paul..
A lot of folks out here in the real world are dealing with serious CAFO contamination issues, many are dying from it and it's just a joke to others. My mom passed from e coli infection. There are around 335,000,000 tons of mismanaged animal waste produced in the US annually. Instead of feigning ignorance or throwing out straw man nonsense, visit the reality based community once in awhile. How about a day of joy at a pig CAFO? Here's a little primer in case you are truly that uninformed.

http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2010/10/14/industrial-livestock-production-and-water-quality-how-335-million-tons-of-mismanaged-manure-can-foul-things-up/

Meat consumption is the most significant contributor to food bourne illness and death in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no5/mead.htm
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 851
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/24/2010 6:51:07 AM
RE Msg: 1858 by Earthpuppy:
A lot of folks out here in the real world are dealing with serious CAFO contamination issues, many are dying from it and it's just a joke to others. My mom passed from e coli infection. There are around 335,000,000 tons of mismanaged animal waste produced in the US annually. Instead of feigning ignorance or throwing out straw man nonsense, visit the reality based community once in awhile. How about a day of joy at a pig CAFO? Here's a little primer in case you are truly that uninformed.

http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2010/10/14/industrial-livestock-production-and-water-quality-how-335-million-tons-of-mismanaged-manure-can-foul-things-up/
Earthpuppy, CAFO can indeed be a problem. But it doesn't HAVE to be a problem.

The Earth works in a CYCLE. Plants produce food. Animals eat food. Animals make excrement. Those excretions are the very things that plants eat, and which gives them the very nutrients that allow them to make food.

In effect, animal excrement, both urine and faeces, are both potent fertilisers. They are supposed to be mixed into the soil, as a potent fertiliser, and then covered over by the soil, to ensure they don't contaminate the water supply or spread disease.

One can even see this, by the normal behaviour of animals, which is to make their droppings on the soil.

As long as the urine and faeces are collected and sold as fertiliser to farmers, then we don't have any problems at all. In fact, by using this process, we increase our farmland's food production greatly, which increases our food supply very easily and very cheaply.

The only difficulty is that in our industrialised economies, we tend to only think about our part of the process, and not the whole process overall.

Meat consumption is the most significant contributor to food bourne illness and death in the US. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no5/mead.htm
It's always been the case that meat that wasn't freshly killed has been the most potent source of bacteria, and thus the greatest source of food-borne disease. It is possibly one reason why palaeolithic diets were only 30% meat and grains, and 70% fruits and vegetables. Fruits are vegetables have our greatest source of vitamins and minerals, which gives our bodies the greatest source of nutrients to fight disease, such as the efficacious power of Vitamin C to fight disease.

If we are to eat healthily, we are best to gain by thinking of all of our food sources, not just the things we like to eat.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 852
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/24/2010 8:31:28 AM
scorp..
It is the CONCENTRATION of CAFO livestock and effluent that overwhelms the land's ability to absorb nutrients from that effluent and to keep the effluent from reaching surface and ground waters. When I farmed, the grass stood still and the animals moved, spreading their own fertilizer. In winters we had to mechanically spread it over snow cover, careful to leave buffers around the edges of fields and drainages. We had more land to fertilize than effluent avaialable. With the advent of CAFOs, most of those "farmers" that we are supposed to sell fertiliser to, are long gone. Economic viability demands that the crap be spread as close to the CAFO as possible, leading to that overwhelming of soil resources.

The very nature of CAFO operations changes the nature of the manure from what we managed a few decades ago. Repeated applications of the stuff leads to heavy metals buildup in soils of Zinc, Arsenic, Copper, as well as high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen, and pesticide residues. The anti-biotic dependency of CAFO operations breeds anti-biotic resistent strains of bacteria that make their way into drinking water supplies. The pathogens are evolving far faster than our capacity to keep up to them. Of course we also ingest those anti-biotic residues in meat, further running us down the slippery slope of anti-biotic resistence. In the old farming model, anti-biotics were reserved for the rare case of mastitis or infected fence lacerations. Now it's a daily regime in food because of the unhealthy conditions inherent in the CAFO model.

The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesepeake Bay and other waters is directly linked to increased CAFO domination by the Food Chain Gang, Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, Tyson, et. al. The CAFOs themselves tend to get concentrated in clusters for economic viability in food distribution, slaughter and processing and product distribution infrastructure. In these concentrated areas, air quality also becomes an issue from hydrogen sulfide, Ammonia and VOCs. Unless you've not lived near one or visited one, you have no idea what happens to communities when CAFOs infest an area. No one wants to buy a house downwind of a few thousand pigs.

The CAFO dominance also leads to elimination of smaller, more sustainable farmers.
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1043/cafos-uncovered-the-untold-costs-of-confined-animal-feeding-operations
"Perhaps even more important has been the concentration of market power in the processing industry upon which animal farmers depend. This concentration allows meat processors to exert considerable economic control over livestock producers, often in the form of production contracts and animal ownership. The resulting “captive supply” can limit market access for independent smaller producers, since the large majority of livestock are either owned by processors or acquired under contract - and processors typically do not contract with smaller producers. Federal government watchdogs have stated that the agency responsible for ensuring that markets function properly for smaller producers is not up to the task."

Many CAFO operators end up becoming serfs for their corporate masters, subject to changing rules, contract demands to keep doing the wrong thing even if healthier options become available, and increasingly watching their bottom line drop. The Food Chain Gang always wins.

I highly recommend Food Inc. as a primer about what is really happening to our industrialized food supply industry.
http://www.documentary-log.com/you-are-watching-food-inc/
http://www.nocafos.org/news.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/costs-and-benefits-of.html
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 853
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/24/2010 7:13:52 PM

so far I haven't been led to one shread of proof of evo.



Stuff like that happens when one is isolated among creatures who refuse to evolve, who despite no shread of proof, think that skys gods are proven by printed words of ancient supersitious people, yet the bones of giants in the earth are imaginary. The vast divide between creation mythology and science is never going to sate those who are intent on stopping evolution with hissy fits and blue faces. Forcing theology and flat earth thinking upon an evolving species is a battle you cannot win unless the theocrats are again resort to crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, crucifictions, holocaust, book burnings, and fascism extremism to wipe out knowledge. We have plenty of them seeking to do just that. Hopefully we will continue to evolve past the last of the neanderthals.


That, and Mele Kalikimaka, happy solstice, saturnalia, xmas, Kwanzaa, Feliz Navidad, fröhliche Weihnachten, happy holy days, happy holly daze, fun Fesitvus, etc...The earth wobbles, the sun returns. Hope stays afloat and life begins anew.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 854
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 12/25/2010 4:23:29 PM
RE Msg: 1867 by Earthpuppy:
scorp..
It is the CONCENTRATION of CAFO livestock and effluent that overwhelms the land's ability to absorb nutrients from that effluent and to keep the effluent from reaching surface and ground waters.
Yes, concentration is an important factor, as higher concentrations will mean it will take shorter times to pollute the land.

However, concentration is NOT the only factor. The way that the faeces and urine are distributed, has a hand in it too, as if the faeces and urine are not re-distributed properly, they will collect and cause toxification and will become a breeding-ground for disease. In such situations, lower concentrations only mean it will take longer to pollute the land, in exactly the same ways.

It's also incredibly important to consider annasthasia's point about ensuring the water table isn't contaminated by faeces, as according to Florence Nightingale, 16,000 out of 18,000 who died in the Crimean War, died because of water contaminated by faeces and dead animals.

You do have to consider the whole system, and work out what is reasonable to happen, given human effects on the environment, and what human-planned arrangements are sustainable, as many are, and many are not. One really cannot rely on one's intuition here that easily, as so many of us think we understand things, but do not.

When I farmed, the grass stood still and the animals moved, spreading their own fertilizer. In winters we had to mechanically spread it over snow cover, careful to leave buffers around the edges of fields and drainages. We had more land to fertilize than effluent avaialable.
You've been very lucky, then.

With the advent of CAFOs, most of those "farmers" that we are supposed to sell fertiliser to, are long gone.
Yes, I know. It's not just a problem in the US, you know. I write more on this later.

Economic viability demands that the crap be spread as close to the CAFO as possible, leading to that overwhelming of soil resources.
If you look at the article you cited earlier, you'll see that it says:
factory farms typically embrace a decidedly lower-tech waste management strategy: they just shove all the manure into big open pits called manure lagoons.
http://www.ecocentricblog.org/2010/10/14/industrial-livestock-production-and-water-quality-how-335-million-tons-of-mismanaged-manure-can-foul-things-up/

The companies running CAFO don't spread it around at all. They just dig huge pits, like latrines, and then keep dumping and dumping the faeces and urine in exactly the same place, again and again. When the pits fill up, they just dig another pit.

However, the term "manure lagoon" is very revealing, as a lagoon refers to an inland body of water. If they just used urine and faeces in a pit, then the urine would be absorbed by the faeces, and the water would dry off anyway in the Sun. It's thus likely that they dig pits that are connected to water channels, and then just dump it in there, so the overland and underground rivulets carry off the water. However, that water is probably used by others downstream, either humans or animals or both. It's probably much like the way many Indians dump their urine and faeces in the rivers they wash in, and drink from.

"Economic viability" usually means "get rid of it for the cheapest price", which often means "dump it anywhere you are unlikely to get caught, but do a little travel as possible, to save time (time is money), and to save fuel." With that sort of logic, it's about the dollars and the dollars alone, not any long-term consequences. It's chemical dumping, plain and simple.

The very nature of CAFO operations changes the nature of the manure from what we managed a few decades ago. Repeated applications of the stuff leads to heavy metals buildup in soils of Zinc, Arsenic, Copper, as well as high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen, and pesticide residues. The anti-biotic dependency of CAFO operations breeds anti-biotic resistent strains of bacteria that make their way into drinking water supplies. The pathogens are evolving far faster than our capacity to keep up to them. Of course we also ingest those anti-biotic residues in meat, further running us down the slippery slope of anti-biotic resistence.
It's been happening for several decades, on small farms as well as large ones, ever since science started being used to improve farming. Pesticides are routinely used to replace checking for greenfly, because it's quicker and easier. Antibiotics are routinely used in all sorts of products, because it's much cheaper than checking animals for disease.

In the old farming model, anti-biotics were reserved for the rare case of mastitis or infected fence lacerations. Now it's a daily regime in food because of the unhealthy conditions inherent in the CAFO model.
You get the same in a small farm. Check out any dairy farm. I live in the UK, where you can just go to a farm in the car and ask the farmer to see the farm, and he'll usually agree if you are polite. In lots of farms I've been to, several of the cows clearly have had udder infections. However the dairy farmers rely on pasteurisation to get rid of the germs. That way, they can still use the milk of sick cows.

However, when I read up on the history of dairy farming, I found that pasteurisation was made mandatory in the US, because farmers were using the milk of sick cows back then. They're still using the milk of sick cows. The only difference is that now we pasteurise the milk. But that's all that's changed.

The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesepeake Bay and other waters is directly linked to increased CAFO domination by the Food Chain Gang, Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, Tyson, et. al.
Many chemicals display the property that their molecules have a natural affinity for each other. When such chemicals are introduced into any solution, including water, then they randomly meet over time, and then 2 molecules join up, then 3, then more and more, until they become a large floating mass. So with many chemicals, it's a foregone solution once you start dumping them into the water supply.

At this point, I'd like to reiterate the point about Florence Nightingale. She found that in the Crimean War, 16,000 out of 18,000 died of contaminated water. She found that with contaminated water supplies, clean bed-linen, good nutrition, ventilation and clean hospitals had no effect. The result of cleaning up the water supply eliminated 99% of deaths, and that was in the middle of a vicious and bloody war. So it's absolutely essential that the water supply is not contaminated with fecal matter, or any substances that can poison humans or other animals.

The CAFOs themselves tend to get concentrated in clusters for economic viability in food distribution, slaughter and processing and product distribution infrastructure. In these concentrated areas, air quality also becomes an issue from hydrogen sulfide, Ammonia and VOCs. Unless you've not lived near one or visited one, you have no idea what happens to communities when CAFOs infest an area. No one wants to buy a house downwind of a few thousand pigs.
CAFOs tend to cluster, because businesses tend to cluster. Once ONE company gets planning permission to build a certain type of factory in a specific plot of land, it's far easier to get planning permission for another business of the same type on the same plot of land, than it is to build elsewhere. Everyone's afraid of pollutant factories like CFAOs. So anytime ONE company suggests building ONE near your town, your townspeople campaign against it quite strongly. So they get their application rejected. That happens again and again. But where one CFAO was built, that's where the townspeople lost, and once they've lost, the council now side with the factory owners. The fight becomes much harder, and the townspeople have lost much of their previous momentum. So naturally, the CFAOs find it much easier to get permission, if they build side by side.

Unfortunately, this happens because the townspeople are thinking with good intentions, but are not thinking out the long-term consequences of their actions, and no-one is pointing it out to them.

The CAFO dominance also leads to elimination of smaller, more sustainable farmers.
http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1043/cafos-uncovered-the-untold-costs-of-confined-animal-feeding-operations
"Perhaps even more important has been the concentration of market power in the processing industry upon which animal farmers depend. This concentration allows meat processors to exert considerable economic control over livestock producers, often in the form of production contracts and animal ownership. The resulting “captive supply” can limit market access for independent smaller producers, since the large majority of livestock are either owned by processors or acquired under contract - and processors typically do not contract with smaller producers. Federal government watchdogs have stated that the agency responsible for ensuring that markets function properly for smaller producers is not up to the task."

Many CAFO operators end up becoming serfs for their corporate masters, subject to changing rules, contract demands to keep doing the wrong thing even if healthier options become available, and increasingly watching their bottom line drop. The Food Chain Gang always wins.
Same thing has happened with the supermarkets. They have become so powerful in the UK, that the only way for farmers to make a living, are to join the list of farmers who regularly supply a supermarket chain. It's really hard to get in on one, though, and even then, you are not just subject to their way of doing things, you are also subject to their pricing demands, which are hefty. Farmers that supply supermarkets just about break even, but barely. The rest are going under.

If you want, you can blame CAFO, or the supermarkets. Problem is, that most people like the convenience of supermarkets. They don't want to go back to the prices we used to pay for our food, or that you had to go shopping to several shops to get your shopping, and the fact that you couldn't get it all on the same day, or the fact that some weren't in season and you couldn't get it at all that month, or the fact that it would go rotten very quickly and had to shop every day or every 2 days.

You can lament about the past. But we have chosen this situation, we as the people, and only we as the majority of the people can undo it.

I look forward to seeing your petition to have large supermarket chains and CFAOs made illegal.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 855
Evolution.
Posted: 12/28/2010 11:17:07 AM

The origins of the universe are technically beyond th escope of observation and experimentation; thus cannot be based on scientific fact.


But they can be based on observing the laws of the universe, theorizing on how those laws came into being then searching for mechanisms & causes of those laws. Theists simply look at the origins of the universe, say" we don't know HOW it happened, so it must have been God" and leave it at that, without explaining how God came into being.




Some food for thought as to why it might make sense and be quite logical to believe in the God of the Bible.
1. The law of cause and effect
No effect can be produced without a cause.


Following that statement, we see that means God needs some mechanism to bring about His/Her/Its creation.


2. The uniqueness of Humanity


We are a more evolved & more ( supposedly) intelligent nothing more. And the jury is still out on whether higher intelligence is a good evolutionary trait or not.

And we don't know how unique we may be, there may be similar intelligent races scattered throughout the universe.


3. The complexity, Order, Design of the Universe
earth is just the right distance from the sun, our nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, the tilt of the earth's axis, our ocean systems, our moon, the specif heat of water etc.


Which proves only that Earth is "just the right distance from the sun, our nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere, the tilt of the earth's axis, our ocean systems, our moon, the specif heat of water etc" suited for life such as humans. If it wasn't suited for life such as humans, we wouldn't be having these discussions.

( btw what do you mean by the phrase "specific heat of water" ?)


4. The Morality Argument
Most, if not all people have a sense of right and wrong.


And atheists have this sense as well as theists.


we are made in the image of God


Which god? There are many to choose from.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 857
Evolution.
Posted: 12/28/2010 12:52:05 PM
Actually thiests don't just take a casual glance as you suggest

I highly doubt that you are able to accurately speak on behalf of theists in general, although that is also what CD was doing.

If you were to spend some time with a thiest, and actually listen to what they have to say, you might understand why they believe as they do.

When I was a theist, I believed because:

-I was led to believe a certain way by upbringing
-I didn't know otherwise
-it helped to make sense out of the human condition
-it provided direction and guidance

while thiests that are honest with themselves...

In your opinion, what is the percentage of theists who are honest with themselves vs. ones who are not?

Athiests will contort themselves into amazing pretzles just to avoid saying.... "We don't know how it all started".

I haven't found that avoidance in my experience. It's amazing how differently people can perceive things in basically the same environment.

The difference, as I see it, is that traditional theists generally feel they have found a satisfactory answer as to origins. Atheists are never satisfied because each answer they find leads to more questions. The search for naturalistic explanations drives intellectual curiosity. That is why the vast majority of cosmologists, and scientists in general, are atheist or agnostic.

They have theories, everybody has theories. Until there is actual proof, all theories carry the same weight.

Theory is a word with more than one simple definition. I.e. there are different types or classes of theories, and they do not all carry the same weight-- sometimes it merely means "a good sounding explanation or idea that just popped into my head." Furthermore, as far as actual scientific theories go, they cannot be proven per se; they can only be disproven.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 858
Evolution.
Posted: 12/28/2010 2:13:29 PM

Actually thiests don't just take a casual glance as you suggest, and then come to the conclusion that since we don't know how it happened, it must have been God.

I will alter my previous comment to say: I doubt the accuracy of this claim. While claiming what theists do not do, you do not offer a counterclaim of what is done.

Ahhh, in YOUR experience you haven't avoided.

Not what I said. I will rephrase: I have not found atheists to avoid saying that they do not have factual conclusions regarding origins of the universe.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 859
Evolution.
Posted: 12/28/2010 2:39:49 PM

Until there is actual proof, all theories carry the same weight. AND, as far as origin of matter and energy, or more simply put, the beginning of it all, the "how God came into being", it is all theoretical.


Except that the belief in God ISN'T a theory ( it's the acceptance of something on faith) so it would carry no weight.

from the site : http://psychology.about.com/od/tindex/f/theory.htm


A theory is a based upon a hypothesis and backed by evidence. A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. In science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory is a fact-based framework for describing a phenomenon.


One could hypothesize that there is a "god", but since the hypothesis can't be backed by any evidence & can't be tested it can't be a theory.


Athiests will contort themselves into amazing pretzles just to avoid saying.... "We don't know how it all started".


I'm guessing you meant to say SOME atheists " will contort themselves into amazing pretzles just to avoid saying.... "We don't know how it all started" (and theists will answer the question of how it all started by saying God did it, but can supply no evidence to support their claim).

But in actually, all most atheists would say is atheism" simply the lack of belief in "God " or gods".

That's all an atheist needs to say, athesism doesn't require an explanation of "how it all started".

If asked, I would say I don't know, but there is no evidence to show God did it, so why should I believe that explanation?

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/definition-of-atheism-not-a-belief.html
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 860
Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2010 3:02:52 PM

there is nothing casual about a belief based on faith.

You are debating in an echo chamber here. You introduced the descriptor "casual" to this particular discussion and have been the only one using it so far.

Is this what you meant?

No, I meant what I wrote the first time, and the second time-- but not what you wrote in your rather bold alteration of what I wrote.

Your problem in this particular issue is that you aren't asking atheists the right questions, two of which are: "What caused the big bang, and what existed before the big bang?"
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 861
Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2010 4:19:37 PM
This is something that I ask all the time, I think I even started a thread on the topic..........

Maybe you could point me to that thread. You mean that you ask about the origin of matter, and it takes a surprisingly long time for "we don't know" to enter the dialog?

Oh, another good "we don't know" question to ask is "Why does anything exist?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but a double negative is a positve, and if you remove the two negatives, the "not" in this situation, the statement still means the same.

You are misapplying that principle in our case-- to what ends, I can only speculate.

THIS is a double negative: "We don't have no money." That would be a mis-write of the Queen's English.

What I wrote were two negative statements linked by a "that" in response to your statement. This is a parallel example of our discussion:

You: "I missed the bus that was not painted yellow."

Me: "Well, I did not miss the bus that was not painted yellow."

You: "Let me turn your double negative into a positive: 'I did miss the bus that was painted yellow.' Is that what you meant?"

No, nein, nyet, negative, negatory. Those are not the same statements in any language, real or imagined.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 863
Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2010 5:02:41 PM
I'll try to take it down a notch or two for you:

You (and I quote): "Athiests will contort themselves into amazing pretzles just to avoid saying.... 'We don't know how it all started.'"

I call BS on that.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 864
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2010 5:09:24 PM
I can state with equal certainty, the the universe began with a giant cosmic orgasim between two or ten or more beings, far beyond our understanding, doings things that most prudes on Earth would condemn, followed by a Flying Spaghetti Monster buffet, some dude turning water into wine, another dozens turning wine into Whine, a few more drunk sodomites pouring over transcripts late at night converting the story into a viable screenplay between boinking kids, adjusted for the ages, adjusting for polyester suits and mixed media, and manipulating it all as always to gain control over other versions of the crime scene. It's pretty much all documented, bibles and courts records included. All the atheists I have know admit that they have some sort of compelling alternative to the unbelievable and unproveable. But, they don't take any of it seriously. Who in the hell KNOWS. It is easy to be unknowing, without guilt, punishment for not knowing..Those in the KNOW are seemingly the most threatened by agnosticsm, atheism, and other isms that do not comply. The most insecure people I ever met were the most sure of the unknown.

Meanwhile...back on Earth the miniseries, the Jersey Shore of the universe, the KleptocracyCorporatacracy/Idiocracy continues with it's plans to stop evolution in it's tracks until the ransom has been paid in full for a few generations and everyone drinks the kool-aid. If we are to continue to evolve, it will be under the empire's rules.
http://www.alternet.org/world/149348/wikileaks_cables_reveal_u.s._sought_to_retaliate_against_europe_over_refusing_to_allow_monsanto_gm_crops?page=entire
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 865
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2010 5:59:49 PM
Paul..we agree on more things than you would wish to acknowledge. I don't try to present alternative views with absolute knowlege, but do try to present the alternative realities to what people think they know. I sometimes bristle at the absolutists with an equal and ironic absolutism that is lost in translation. I am an agnostic more than Buddhist/methodist/pagan/universalist/ismist of any sort. The facts of the physical reality of the US empire have nothing to do with religion. I just look at the facts, stats, history, trends, debts, victims, etc, and come to the conclusions about that that most in the world come to given such info. I have served on 3 juries and understand the burden of proof as well as the responsibility toward truth. There is no proof of God, never has been, will not be till she chimes in, no proof of intelligent life on earth that is not intent on blowing the planet to smithereens, unless we look to "lower" life forms, and certainly no proof of evolving into a more intelligent and viable species for the long run and the run to the stars.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 866
view profile
History
Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2010 6:41:35 PM
We share opinions, attempt to back them up with proof, but it all comes down to opinions and proofs that sate us. Coming from a long history of tolerating too long, the opinion bullies from the far right being pushier and more obnoxious by the year, those of us in the middle and other spectrums are entitled to express opinions with equal diligence and forthrightness, particularly when facts come into play. The bullshiite has to stop at some point and some of us enjoy the journey in afflicting the comfy. As a result of alligning with citizen groups and activists, I have had the privelege of having met the nicest, most informed, funniest, and most honorable people in this short journey of counter-cliche' and anti -BS patrol. The jury thing was but a blip in a long history of us winning many a victory over lies, corporate bullying, obfuscationists, confusionists and bureaupaths, along with crooked politicians, sellouts, corporate whores and others who rely on bs rather than actual facts. The scoresheet such as it is, is quite satisfactory at this point in time. I just do this like some folks stir their coffee and ponder the crossword puzzle. Nuttin to prove, no end result expected, but fun to irk the holier than thous, the certain people, the theocrats, and others who refuse to allow evolution to continue or embrace fascism in all it's red white and blue forms. Thanks for the good wishes on a long journey. You are are a bright spot on the way.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >